The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president according to the Constitution.

The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots.

The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The same document included former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance on a list of preferred candidates for vice president.

The group, which adopted the document during their last national convention held between October 13 and 15 last year, goes on to argue in the document that a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born, pointing to the thinking of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    If there was any doubt just what they are planning… This should clear it up. If you aren’t straight… Christian… And White

    Your future in the US is not assor ed. The fact that you were born here, will not save you

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’re ping-ponging between “She’s not actually black” and “She’s too black”. Always a strong sign for a campaign.

      • qprimed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        She’s not actually black" and “She’s too black”.

        so fascism.

        they were successful in 2016 with that same shit. the maga base mainline this type of dissonance for breakfast.

        in the end, maga is a pack of rabid, feral skunks and they will show up to vote - so damn close to everything they think they want.

        but I think what we saw in 2020 was it. thats the totally of their vote. I don’t think there is substantive additional out there.

        however, I think there is a ton more “Republicans are now creepy weird” vote out there. it just needs to show up to the polls and be able to legally vote. the biden/kamala-quake shook anyones shit up enough to get her serious public attention. the vote we need is watching now so I am cool with every rock the insane clown GOPosse gives us.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          so fascism.

          Well, racism.

          they were successful in 2016 with that same shit.

          More white women voted for Trump than Hilary. I don’t think this was a fascism thing nearly so much as a failure-of-neoliberalism thing. Hilary built her campaign around a very business friendly professionalist campaign that had absolutely no appeal in the blue collar Rust Belt or the service sector heavy Atlantic Coast.

          A better (cough Sanders cough) campaign wouldn’t have hemorrhaged support through the Midwest and cost Hillary winnable states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

          maga is a pack of rabid, feral skunks and they will show up to vote

          Trump has been a big motivator for turnout when he was at the top of the ticket in '16 and '20. But MAGA as a movement doesn’t seem nearly as enthusiastic without their Big Guy driving the turnout directly. Case in point, Trump was all over Alabama campaigning for the Senate primary. His primary pick lost. His backup primary pick lost. And then the pedophile freak who rode a christian white nationalist wave was the first Republican to lose a statewide Alabama election in nearly 20 years, purely because participation tanked.

          Trump’s One Cool Trick was to tap into a large number of otherwise apathetic voters and use them to win primaries. But when they’re not voting for him specifically, he’s done a poor job of GOTV.

          Biden was dead weight on the ticket up until he dropped out, and Harris is enjoying an “Anyone But Biden” rebound. But that just makes this a race to the bottom in terms of candidate quality. Its not enough to just blame losses on Republican enthusiasm. Dems have been disappointing and betraying their base straight back to the Carter Era. Neoliberalism has choked progressive activism and liberal populism, ceding enormous amounts of territory to the Republicans.

          • qprimed@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            thanks for the really well considered reply. gotta admit, I cant disagree with anything you wrote.

            all damn valid points, particularly the failure of neo-liberalism to bring sustained improvement to the vast majority of people. something as soulless as this was always destined for a confrontation with reality.

            I know its the thing to claim everything is “fash” again, but its gotten easier to recognize the evolution from reagan through biden of us imperialism and how tightly it couples in places with historically extreme right ideations.

            velvet covered fascism is still fascism when it comes home to roost - and boy, howdy are we getting a nice little brush up against it.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is a reach, even for these racist lunatics. It’s gotta be part of a scheme of some kind, but I can’t figure out what. Any ideas? Or are they just this shitty?

  • ChlkDstTtr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    “An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases … have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the document states.

    The group then cites six cases including *Dred Scott v Sandford. *The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.

    They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing which changes the constitution to ban slavery. An amendment is very different than a law banning slavery.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s a special irony in relying on Clarence Thomas to vet your Dred Scott decision to try and deny a poc a place on the ballot.

      They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing

      Modern conservatives can and do argue that the 14th Amendment isn’t valid because of the post-Civil War state of martial law. But then they’ll argue that the original secession was legal, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says you can’t secede. But also, there’s penumbral rights afforded specifically to white Christian men. But then also, the 17th and 19th amendments don’t count, because idfk something about the color of the fringe on the flag or some dumb confused legalistic bullshit.

      It’s all Calvinball. The end game of any purely legalist institution is just layer after layer of silly interpretations stacked to the upper atmosphere, with a bunch of old grouchy know-it-alls yelling “Stop breaking the law!” from behind it all.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth

      Jack shit has found this to be the case lmao. The parents don’t have to have citizenship. Every day, immigrants with green cards from all over the world are giving birth on US soil to US citizens.

      Plus, if we follow this group’s logic, most people would not be US citizens, because of how many people trace their lineage to immigrants. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would thus not be citizens by their logic, and if that’s the case, why are/were they even permitted on SCOTUS?

      Republicans have truly scraped the bottom of the barrel at this point. In a sense we’re blessed that such hateful people are such sheer idiots.

      It also brings up an interesting point though – why hasn’t this Supreme Court, which is prolific in overturning past precedents, not vacated the Dred Scott decision yet? Curious, isn’t it?

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They ignored the 14th for the Dobbs decision. This is right in line with current SCOTUS jurisprudence.

      Illegitimate SCOTUS.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Holy shit, these assholes are desperate and batshit crazy

    George Washington would have been ineligible

    Not like that I guess (he’s white and also its unthinkable the guy who like helped found USAmerica couldn’t be president)

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The group’s response:

    The media’s suggestion that referencing a court case in a 30+ page document equates to endorsing every aspect of the case is inherently dishonest and misleading.

    I would agree if this statement was about almost any other case, but Dred Scott v Sandford? Seriously? This reminds me of the recent argument that a free trial of Disney Plus creates a permanent agreement to binding arbitration even in the case of wrongful death. Sometimes it’s best not to make a certain argument even if (and that’s a big if) that argument is technically correct.

    With that said, this organization is a group of especially right-wing Republicans but it isn’t an official part of the Republican Party. More mainstream Republicans don’t endorse these bizarre legal theories; they prefer to make up false claims which, if they were true, really would disqualify a person from being president.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Disney+ case, that’s misinformation. Not saying it was a smart move on Disney’s part, terrible PR and it was only to save some money, but the argument wasn’t that. Disney was being roped in due to info on their website, they don’t run the restaurant, and the website would fall under the jurisdiction of the Disney+ TOS. Again, it was a bad decision on their part and I also don’t think that Binding Arbitration agreements should exist in TOS in the first place, but the meme about the headline isn’t true.

      Source: https://youtu.be/hiDr6-Z72XU